More evidence that, as Dubya‚s polls have fallen to earth, the media‚s traditional skepticism is back.

The media may have rolled over for the surprise Thanksgiving trip, giving Dubya two-plus days of glowing coverage.

But they have been quite happy to puncture holes in it after the fact.

Yesterday, W. Post‚s Mike Allen -- who was blessed with a secret Baghdad invite and gushed about the trip on Meet The Press Ų uncovered that the money shot of Bush with the picture-perfect turkey, featured only a decorative turkey centerpiece, not what the troops ate.

(UPDATE Dec. 5 9 AM ET -- The original post described it as a "fake turkey," which was an oversimplification. Thanks to John_I over at the LiberalOasis SoapBox.)

The story was buried on page 33. But other major media picked up on it anyway, including CNN‚s Newsnight, CBS News, Reuters and ABC World News Tonight.

It‚s possible that the media are motivated to take shots in this case because they‚re chafing at being lied to by the Bushies about the whole trip in the first place.

(Despite feeling obliged to mostly bite their collective tongue about it initially.)

But it would also seem that from this point forward, the finer Rovian stage-managed photo-ops will be subject to intense scrutiny.

Further, he got his facts wrong when he argued Dubya‚s gubernatorial records were also locked away. In truth, he tried to do that, but was rebuffed by the courts.

(Although, Bush‚s records are not as accessible as they‚re cracked up to be, see Daily Kos.)

Of course, these kinds of mistakes usually speak more to incompetence or inexperience than sleaziness. Accomplished charlatans know better than to make such missteps.

But the big question for many Dem voters continues to be: who is most capable of beating Dubya?

And how competently one handles the inevitable heat has a lot to do with one‚s electability.

Dean is being tested on this score more than others, because he‚s in the frontrunner hot seat right now.

(If that should somehow change, one hopes we‚ll get to see the others under fire before they get nominated. No one wants any autumn 2004 surprises.)

So how is Dean stacking up? Let‚s look at the three biggest flaps so far.

On this records issue, he gets a D-.

Keep in mind that he wasn‚t even blindsided here. This issue had been percolating for some time.

It was June when a W. Times columnist, in a piece loaded with half-truths, dug up the now infamous „smarty remarkš that Dean sealed the record for 10 years because „we didn't want anything embarrassing appearing in the papers at a critical time in any future endeavor.š

American commanders vowed Monday that the killing of as many as 54 insurgents in this central Iraqi town would serve as a lesson to those fighting the United States[.]

[B]ut Iraqis disputed the death toll∑saying only eight people had been killed, several of them civilians∑

∑The Pentagon insisted the body count was accurate.

That‚s quite the unannounced policy shift.

So what changed?

The NYT characterized the rationale for the official no-body-count policy as such:

The Pentagon typically does not publicize the number of enemy dead or wounded to avoid comparisons to the frequent enemy body counts in the Vietnam War, counts that ultimately proved to be a poor indicator of American military performance.

However, that doesn‚t fully explain the policy going into the Iraq War.

Facing a largely dilapidated Iraqi army, one suspects that „poor American military performanceš was not a big fear of the Rummyites.

Just the opposite, they didn‚t want Iraqi body counts because they would be so lopsided.

The US would look like a monster, not a liberator.

But it's no longer „major combat operations.š It‚s guerilla war. And PR problems are less global and more local.

Simply put, Rummy does not want Americans to think we‚re losing.

Hearing our casualty numbers and not theirs can do that.

The NY Times sensed the shift:

But after weeks of suffering casualties∑American military officials seemed to relish the opportunity on Monday to claim credit for dealing the fighters a punishing blow.

Of course, as long as the info is accurate, body counts, unseemly as they are, are a good thing in that people will know what is really going on.

Either way, Rove created the worst possible political outcome: betrayal. Nothing is more damaging then getting someone‚s hopes up, then subsequently crushing them.

Whereas if Rove foresaw the probable WTO outcome and never pushed the tariffs in the first place, swing state steel executives and workers would have been displeased, but not betrayed, since Bush was not expected to promote any such protectionism.

It appears that once again, Rove got cocky, believed his own hype, and paid the price.

Rove may be tough. He may stop at nothing. But he is far from infallible.

Of the shows, This Week gave Medicare the biggest play, pitting Sen. John Breaux, one of two Dems that cut the Medicare deal with the GOP, against Sen. Trent Lott, who voted against the bill.

From the Dubya-Rove perspective, Breaux was not exactly the best defender of the legislation.

He tempered his own praise, saying that it is „not a perfect bill, but it is 100 percent better than what seniors had in the past.š

And when George Stephanopoulos Ų noting that budget analysts believe the real 20-year cost may be as much as $2 trillion Ų asked how the bill was going to be paid for, Breaux‚s response was devoid of feel-good spin:

Some out of general revenue. Some out of the pockets of the beneficiaries.

Seniors hear „pockets of the beneficiariesš and know it means their pockets.

May 28, 2004 (BOSTON) Ų After the highest court in Massachusetts formally decreed in a follow-up ruling that the state must immediately grant marriage licenses to homosexuals, heterosexual spouses wasted no time dissolving their own marriages in record numbers.

Massachusetts heterosexuals apparently agree in spades. Huge lines formed outside Family Court offices across the state, as couples sought to file for divorce.

In interviews with these couples, there was widespread agreement that since an estimated 2% of all marriages would be between gays, the formerly sacred institution of marriage was incontrovertibly corrupted.

„Now that just any two people can get married, what‚s the point?š shrugged Shannon O‚Malley, 45 of Beverly. „It‚s really lost its cache.š

Dorchester‚s Mary Williams, 52, echoed the sentiment.

„You think I‚ve stayed married all this time,š said Williams, „because of the belabored small talk over leftovers, and the thrill of scheduling time to watch that lame Jim Belushi show together?š

„Y‚know when you‚re in high school,š said 31-year-old Patrick Meany of Worcester, „and you‚re at a party, and that loser kid Josh shows up, and all of a sudden you‚re like, őMan, this party sucks,‚š

„That‚s what this is like,š Meany concluded. „Marriage now sucks. The gays killed the party. In fact, I think that Josh guy was gay.š

Sam Needleman, 53 of Ipswich, also had an epiphany after the ruling, but of a different sort.

„I was having typically lifeless, mechanical sex with my wife and I realized, I can totally do this with a guy now, and it will still be a marriage. I pulled right out and said, őYou can keep the house and the dog!‚š

Victory in hand, Human Rights Campaign Executive Director Elizabeth Birch was unrestrained in analyzing the ramifications of the state court ruling.

„Marriage is ours! All ours!š said Birch. „You breeders will never have stable families, and gays will rule PTA meetings and school boards across the land! Ha ha ha ha ha!š